Padilla rule in California

2021(People v. Perez (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 818, 824-829 ; People v. Espinoza (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 908, 912-914 ; People v. Tapia (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 942, 949 ; see People v. Morales (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 502 (Morales) [granting section 1473.7 motion of party who pleaded and served time for a crime in 2002].) California courts initially interpreted section 1473.7 to require defendants to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, following an analysis like that in Padilla.

2021(People v. Perez (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 818, 824-829 ; People v. Espinoza (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 908, 912-914 ; People v. Tapia (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 942, 949 ; see People v. Morales (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 502 (Morales) [granting section 1473.7 motion of party who pleaded and served time for a crime in 2002].) California courts initially interpreted section 1473.7 to require defendants to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, following an analysis like that in Padilla.

2018This is not a hard case in which to find deficiency: The consequences of Padilla's plea could easily be determined from reading the removal statute, his deportation was presumptively mandatory, and his counsel's advice was incorrect." ( Id . at pp. 368-369, 130 S.Ct. 1473 .) The court determined that to provide effective assistance of counsel, "counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation." ( Padilla, supra, 559 U.S. at p. 374 , 130 S.Ct. 1473 .) In Rodriguez-Vega , supra , 797 F.3d 781 , the Ninth Circuit, following Padilla , concluded where a defendant's conv

2018This is not a hard case in which to find deficiency: The consequences of Padilla's plea could easily be determined from reading the removal statute, his deportation was presumptively mandatory, and his counsel's advice was incorrect." ( Id . at pp. 368-369, 130 S.Ct. 1473 .) The court determined that to provide effective assistance of counsel, "counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation." ( Padilla, supra, 559 U.S. at p. 374 , 130 S.Ct. 1473 .) In Rodriguez-Vega , supra , 797 F.3d 781 , the Ninth Circuit, following Padilla , concluded where a defendant's conv

2022(Mejia, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 865 ; Camacho, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1006– 1008.) “Unlike the Padilla rule, section 1473.7 applies retroactively, allowing challenges to pleas entered into before it was adopted. [Citations.]” (People v. Rodriguez, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at pp. 309–310.) The 2019 version of section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1) states the basis to bring a motion to vacate that is now applicable to this case: “The conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend 28. against, or knowing

2022(Mejia, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 865 ; Camacho, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1006– 1008.) “Unlike the Padilla rule, section 1473.7 applies retroactively, allowing challenges to pleas entered into before it was adopted. [Citations.]” (People v. Rodriguez, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at pp. 309–310.) The 2019 version of section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1) states the basis to bring a motion to vacate that is now applicable to this case: “The conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend 28. against, or knowing

2022(Mejia, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 865 ; Camacho, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1006– 1008.) “Unlike the Padilla rule, section 1473.7 applies retroactively, allowing challenges to pleas entered into before it was adopted. [Citations.]” (People v. Rodriguez, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at pp. 309–310.) The 2019 version of section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1) states the basis to bring a motion to vacate that is now applicable to this case: “The conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend 28. against, or knowing

2022(Mejia, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 865 ; Camacho, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1006– 1008.) “Unlike the Padilla rule, section 1473.7 applies retroactively, allowing challenges to pleas entered into before it was adopted. [Citations.]” (People v. Rodriguez, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at pp. 309–310.) The 2019 version of section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1) states the basis to bring a motion to vacate that is now applicable to this case: “The conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend 28. against, or knowing

2021(People v. Perez (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 818 , 824–829.) The Standard of Review In People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510 (Vivar), our Supreme Court adopted an independent standard of review for all claims—factual and legal—made pursuant to section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1).

2021(People v. Perez (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 818 , 824–829.) The Standard of Review In People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510 (Vivar), our Supreme Court adopted an independent standard of review for all claims—factual and legal—made pursuant to section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1).

2021(People v. Perez (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 818, 824-829 ; People v. Espinoza (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 908, 912-914 ; People v. Tapia (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 942, 949 ; see People v. Morales (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 502 (Morales) [granting section 1473.7 motion of party who pleaded and served time for a crime in 2002].) California courts initially interpreted section 1473.7 to require defendants to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, following an analysis like that in Padilla.

2021(People v. Perez (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 818, 824-829 ; People v. Espinoza (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 908, 912-914 ; People v. Tapia (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 942, 949 ; see People v. Morales (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 502 (Morales) [granting section 1473.7 motion of party who pleaded and served time for a crime in 2002].) California courts initially interpreted section 1473.7 to require defendants to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, following an analysis like that in Padilla.

2021(People v. Perez (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 818, 824-829 ; People v. Espinoza (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 908, 912-914 ; People v. Tapia (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 942, 949 ; see People v. Morales (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 502 (Morales) [granting section 1473.7 motion of party who pleaded and served time for a crime in 2002].) California courts initially interpreted section 1473.7 to require defendants to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, following an analysis like that in Padilla.

2021(People v. Perez (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 818, 824-829 ; People v. Espinoza (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 908, 912-914 ; People v. Tapia (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 942, 949 ; see People v. Morales (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 502 (Morales) [granting section 1473.7 motion of party who pleaded and served time for a crime in 2002].) California courts initially interpreted section 1473.7 to require defendants to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, following an analysis like that in Padilla.

2021Bill No. 813 at p. 6.)” (People v. Fryhaat (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 969, 976-977 .) Unlike the Padilla rule, Section 1473.7 applies retroactively, allowing challenges to pleas entered into before it was adopted.

2021Bill No. 813 at p. 6.)” (People v. Fryhaat (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 969, 976-977 .) Unlike the Padilla rule, Section 1473.7 applies retroactively, allowing challenges to pleas entered into before it was adopted.

2015We granted Padilla’s and Frank’s respective requests for judicial notice. 4 “Under long-established precedent, an order denying a statutory motion to vacate judgment (CCP §§473, 473.5, 663) is appealable as an order after final judgment.” (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2015) ¶ 2:171, p. 2-117, italics omitted, citing, inter alia, Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 663 .) 8 DISCUSSION I.

2014(Padilla, supra, 559 U.S. at p. 366 [ 130 S.Ct. at p. 1482 , citing Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 687-688 [ 80 L.Ed.2d at p. 693 ].) "A defendant must prove prejudice that is a ' "demonstrable reality," not simply speculation.' [Citations.]" People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1241 .) The Padilla court held that it is critical that trial counsel "inform her noncitizen client that [s]he faces a risk of deportation." (Id., at pp. 373-374 [ 130 S.Ct. at p. 1486 ].) The warnings here were strongly worded, were set forth in the change of plea document and initialed by appe

2014(Padilla, supra, 559 U.S. at p. 366 [ 130 S.Ct. at p. 1482 , citing Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 687-688 [ 80 L.Ed.2d at p. 693 ].) "A defendant must prove prejudice that is a ' "demonstrable reality," not simply speculation.' [Citations.]" People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1241 .) The Padilla court held that it is critical that trial counsel "inform her noncitizen client that [s]he faces a risk of deportation." (Id., at pp. 373-374 [ 130 S.Ct. at p. 1486 ].) The warnings here were strongly worded, were set forth in the change of plea document and initialed by appe

2014On this point, Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113 is instructive.

2014Third, People v. Soriano (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1470 , 1477–1482 (Soriano), relied upon by Ordonez to fill the nonretroactivity gap of Padilla, does not require an attorney to provide immigration advice in the first instance.

2014Third, People v. Soriano (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1470 , 1477–1482 (Soriano), relied upon by Ordonez to fill the nonretroactivity gap of Padilla, does not require an attorney to provide immigration advice in the first instance.

2014First, “[a] motion to vacate the judgment is recognized as equivalent to a petition for the common law remedy of a writ of error coram nobis. [Citations.]” (People v. Mbaabu (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1146 .) “Because the writ of error coram nobis applies where a fact unknown to the parties and the court existed at the time of judgment that, if known, would have prevented rendition of the judgment, the remedy does not lie to enable the court to correct errors of law. [Citation.] This includes constitutional claims, such as a claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to admonish a defenda

2014First, “[a] motion to vacate the judgment is recognized as equivalent to a petition for the common law remedy of a writ of error coram nobis. [Citations.]” (People v. Mbaabu (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1146 .) “Because the writ of error coram nobis applies where a fact unknown to the parties and the court existed at the time of judgment that, if known, would have prevented rendition of the judgment, the remedy does not lie to enable the court to correct errors of law. [Citation.] This includes constitutional claims, such as a claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to admonish a defenda

2014(People v. Story (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1282, 1296 ; see Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 [inquiry requires a determination whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt].) California follows “the traditional approach that limits victims of robbery to those persons in either actual or constructive possession of the property taken.” (People v. Nguyen (2000) 24 Cal.4th 756, 764 .) To establish “constructive possession” the “alleged victim of a robbery [must] have a ‘special relationship’ with the owner of the property

2014(Padilla, supra, 559 U.S. at p. 366 [ 130 S.Ct. at p. 1482 , citing Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 687-688 [ 80 L.Ed.2d at p. 693 ].) "A defendant must prove prejudice that is a ' "demonstrable reality," not simply speculation.' [Citations.]" People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1241 .) The Padilla court held that it is critical that trial counsel "inform her noncitizen client that [s]he faces a risk of deportation." (Id., at pp. 373-374 [ 130 S.Ct. at p. 1486 ].) The warnings here were strongly worded, were set forth in the change of plea document and initialed by appe

2014(Padilla, supra, 559 U.S. at p. 366 [ 130 S.Ct. at p. 1482 , citing Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 687-688 [ 80 L.Ed.2d at p. 693 ].) "A defendant must prove prejudice that is a ' "demonstrable reality," not simply speculation.' [Citations.]" People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1241 .) The Padilla court held that it is critical that trial counsel "inform her noncitizen client that [s]he faces a risk of deportation." (Id., at pp. 373-374 [ 130 S.Ct. at p. 1486 ].) The warnings here were strongly worded, were set forth in the change of plea document and initialed by appe